I was using Python. I passed it already. Thanks for your help though.

I'm so satisfied with this kata! I was up all night trying to figure it out. I learned a lot from this and I appreciate the creator and contributors for this kata.

Python, but I've gotten it to work already. I'm having trouble with passing the last attempted test because of timeouts. It also shows at the top Passed: 30 and Failed: ?

I don't know if it's my CPU or something but everytime it hits the last one it shows execution error and says Passed: 30 Failed: ?. Does anyone know what this means?

Are negative numbers actually being passed to the fib function? When testing for negative (if n < 0) the condition is never met.

I appreciate your explanation and I'll do my part in making sure that I fully understand any kata as much as possible. I truly understand the concerns stated above and I honestly should have asked the question rather than raising an issue. I have done some research on this topic to fully understand it and I'm practicing as we speak. It is a challenging kata and appriciate you and the contributors for providing it.

@trashy_incel bro watch how you talk to people. There are plenty of ways to express yourself particularly when it comes to someone trying to figure things out. If you knew I didn't understand something, rather than telling me about common sense, then you should have at minimun replied with a link to some help. It obviously wasn't "common" to me. Sometimes it's how you express things and not about the assumptions you're making about the programmer. Yes, I raised an issue because I thought there was one but you could have replied with:

"you must be unfamiliar with this kind of problem here's a link to something that'll help you understand it more".

I'm actually doing my due diligence and learning more about this and practicing a whole lot more. I thought I knew what was going on but I completely misunderstood the entirety of the kata (conceptually). I was so focused on the procedural aspect rather than trying to truly understand it.

I'm actually doing my due diligence and learning more about this and practicing a whole lot more. I thought I knew what was going on but I completely misunderstood the entirety of the kata (conceptually). I was so focused on the procedural aspect rather than trying to truly understand it.

('369', [
    "339","366","399","658","636","258","268","669","668","266","369","398",
    "256","296","259","368","638","396","238","356","659","639","666","359",
    "336","299","338","696","269","358","656","698","699","298","236","239"
])

How is '666' there but not '333'? Each digit is counted as its own adjacent digit as well. I'm lost as to what is actually happening. This kata is a mix of finding adjacent digits as well as finding the possible combinations involving each digit but what's expected is highly inconsistent. Idc how many completions it has the expectations are not inline with the task description.

So, you're saying that any of the numbers adjacent to the initial number is also a possibile combination?

('11', ["11", "22", "44", "12", "21", "14", "41", "24", "42"])

24 is a diagonal and so is 42. 2 and 4 are not adjacent to one another. It defeats the horizontal and verticle rules.

It should be:
('11', ["11", "22", "44", "12", "21", "14", "41"])

cr_assert_eq(duplicate_count("abcdea"), 1);

The function returns 1 and it says

the function (duplicate_count("abcdea") == 1 is false

Why is a right answer showing as wrong? Wierd!

Dude, really! Aww man do you know how long I've tried to find that, like what is "strstr"? No one would ever find that procedure. Thanks hobovsky.